Ks contract versioning #2951
Ks contract versioning #2951
Conversation
…conflicting dashboard migration files
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## grants #2951 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 17.05% 30.5% +13.44%
==========================================
Files 175 181 +6
Lines 13864 13908 +44
Branches 1813 1815 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 2365 4242 +1877
+ Misses 11491 9533 -1958
- Partials 8 133 +125
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
tried leaving this comment then my computer froze bc the PR is so big |
| from django.db import migrations | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class Migration(migrations.Migration): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@SaptakS @thelostone-mc do these migrations look ok to you?
| @@ -112,6 +112,12 @@ class Meta: | |||
| default='0x0', | |||
| help_text=_('The contract address of the Grant.'), | |||
| ) | |||
| contract_version = models.DecimalField( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we include a process for handling the ABI based on contract version, so it outputs the appropriate static URL or a given contract version..?
Also, we are we using a decimalfield if decimal_places=0 with max_digits=3?
Can we switch this to a charfield? If we're going by semantic versioning, decimalfield won't make sense: 0.1.0 for example. If we're using integers like: 0 or 1, we should use positiveintegerfield here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we switch this to a charfield? If we're going by semantic versioning, decimalfield won't make sense: 0.1.0 for example. If we're using integers like: 0 or 1, we should use positiveintegerfield here.
this makes sense to me
Should we include a process for handling the ABI based on contract version, so it outputs the appropriate static URL or a given contract version..?
as does this
Implemented contract versioning